Comments 0

Document transcript

The Library of Neo-Eugenics and Conscious EvolutionPerspectives from All Political Persuasions

In an Age of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act.- George OrwellArticles of Insight...Does Race Exist? By John AlexanderA Call to ActionChinese Deal Sparks Eugenics ProtestsSidebar: EugenicsAre the Asians the Destined Master Race?Chapter 5 of Separation and its Discontents by Professor Kevin MacDonaldRace and Crime: An International Dilemma By Rushton, J. PhilippeDiscrimination and Differentiation: An Ethical Biological Issue by George Sunderland Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.Evolution and the Origins of Disease by Randolph M. Nesse and George C. WilliamsEugenics: Economics for the Long Run by Edward M. Miller, PhDEthnicity and Ideology by Gavan TredouxDoes Head Start Make a Difference By Janet Currie and Duncan ThomasIdeology and Censorship in Behavior Genetics by Prof. Glayde WhitneyAn Interview with Charles Murray from Skeptic volume 3, number 2, 1995 Interview by Frank MieleNPR Interview with Charles Murray by Robert SiegelAn Interview with Carl J. BajemaInterview with Robert K. Graham by Marian Van Court!Wright and Wrong By RICHARD LYNNAncient Eugenics by Allen G. Roper, B.A.The Bell Curve and its CriticsCommentary: Replies and Counter-repliesEthics and the Social Sciences - The Beyondist Solution By R. B. CattellOn the Similarities of American Blacks and Whites - A Reply to Rushton by Zack CernovskyBrain Size Matters - A Reply to PetersChapter 12 of the Book "The 'g' Factor" by Arthur JensenIntelligence and CivilizationThe Role of Cognition in Evolutionary TheoryEgalitarian Fiction and Collective FraudCranial Capacity and IQConcerning Scientific Creativity: Hermann J. Muller and Germinal RepositoriesSources of Human Psychological DifferencesHeredity or EnvironmentAbout IQ and the 'g' FactorAbout racial differencesUnwanted Births and Dysgenic Reproduction in The United StatesDysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations - A ReviewThe New Enemies of Evolutionary ScienceWhatever Happened to EugenicsForeword to David Duke's bookTracing the Genetic History of Modern ManEvolution, Altruism and Genetic Similarity TheoryGeographical Centrality as an Explanation for Racial Differences in IntelligenceThe G Factor - The Book and the ControversyA Critique of Gould by JensenReflections on Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man"The Errors and Omissions of the Revised Edition of Gould's The Mismeasure of ManA Substantial InheritanceThe Role of Inheritance in BehaviorThalamic Inhibition in the Evolution of Human Intelligence: Evolutionary Pressure for Cortical InhibitionRaymond B. Cattell and the Fourth InquisitionIntelligence and Social Policy: A special issue of the Multidisciplinary journal INTELLIGENCEThe Evolution of Australian and Amerindian IntelligenceInvisible MenNeo-Lynsekoism, IQ, and the PressKings of Men: a Special Issue of the journal INTELLIGENCE about Arthur JensenStudies of Jewish Genetics and the Racial Double Standard: Is There a Hidden AgendaIndoctrination and Group Evolutionary Strategies: The Case of JudaismWhither Judaism and the WestRacial differences in Intelligence - What Mainstream Science saysConway Zirkle and the Persistence of "Marxian Biology" in the Western Social SciencesPaternal Provisioning versus Mate-Seeking in Human PopulationsThe Limited Plasticity of Human IntelligenceCaring for PosterityThe Evolutionary Function of PrejudiceQuestions and Answers on EugenicsRace as a Biological ConceptRace, Genetics, and Human Reproductive StrategiesOn the biological meaning of raceRace Differences in Intelligence: a Global PerspectiveDoes Race Matter - Recent DevelopmentsThe Reality of Race - A Summary of John R. Baker's book: "Race"Virtue in "Racism"Race, Evolution, and Behavior Summary - by Glayde WhitneyRace, Evolution, and Behavior Summary - by Mark SnydermanHow Relevant is the Nature/Nurture Controversy to the Need for EugenicsRace and Crime: A Reply to Cernovsky and LitmanA Review of "A New Morality from Science: Beyondism"Professor Shockley's ExperimentThe Human Situation and its ReparationThe Consequences of Variable IntelligenceWhy Race Matters: A Review and ExtensionEncouraging Bright Young Couples By Nathaniel WeylThe New Enemies of Evolutionary Science By J. Philippe RushtonThe Mismeasures of Gould By J. Philippe RushtonMore on the Bell Curve By Charles Murray and Daniel SeligmanSpecial Review By J. Philippe RushtonIQ Will put you in Your Place By Charles MurrayEugenics, Class, and IQ: "The Bell Curve" By Dorothy C. WertzEugenics: 1883-1970 By Philip R. Reilly and Dorothy C. WertzState-Coerced Eugenics in the Postmodern World By Dorothy C. WertzEugenics: Alive and Well in China By Dorothy Wertz, PhDWould Eugenic Programs Work? A Thought Experiment By Dorothy C. WertzEugenics: Definitions By Dorothy C. WertzWhat Eugenics is and is Not: Some Examples By Dorothy C. WertzA Brief History of Eugenics: Prologue By Dorothy C. WertzHomecooked Eugenics By Paul R. Billings, MD, PhD18th Int Congress of Genetics Statement on Eugenics By Dorothy C. WertzPositive Eugenics Endorsed by Pres of Intl Assoc. of Bioethics By Dorothy C. WertzImages of American Eugenics By Heather Brown, MS, CGCManifestosEugenics Manifesto By PrometheusOnline BooksThe Future of Man By Robert Klark GrahamThe G Factor By Chris Brand (Download Now!)

We in the Eugenics movement are not interestedin competing against Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx for some minuscule little1,000 year Reich. We are interested in competing with Jesus Christ andBuddha for the destiny of man.Neo-Eugenics Manifesto By PrometheusFriday, April 18 , 2002

“Yes, There is Such a Thing as Race” By John AlexanderThis paper will start by making an assertion that many politically correct academics would consider frustrating, alarming andinfuriating: “Race exists as a biological concept.” Despite the unpopularity of the idea that race exists, slightly over half of allbiological/physical anthropologists today believe in the view that human races are biologically valid and real.1Although thesimple statement “race exists as a biological concept” might make many feel uncomfortable and want to bury their heads in thesand, this paper will attempt to prove that the statement is true. Before doing so, however, it should be noted that this paperfocuses only on the question of whether there is such a thing as race. It will not discuss concepts of racial inferiority orsuperiority and nor will it even attempt to examine the scientific utility of classifying humans by race. The focus of this paper,as stated upfront, is entirely limited to whether race exists as a biological concept. Definition of Race First, there are easily-perceived traits such as hair and eye color, body build, and facial traits which vary among human population groups; thesedifferences are easily perceived by the layman; and these traits are determined at least partially (and perhaps wholly) byancestry (genetics).2Race then is simply the label given to that human population grouping. In other words, as populationgeneticist Steve Sailer has put it, race is a lineage; it is a very extended family that inbreeds to some extent.3Under thisdefinition, race and ancestry are synonyms. Other synonyms for race are cluster, population, statistical collections of alleles,cline, clinal grouping, lineage, and regional pattern. The aforementioned are all terms that many population geneticists useinstead of race;4however, these terms all mean the exact same thing as race. Note that race does not mean the same thingas “species,” if the word species is defined as a biologically distinct breeding unit.5Because it is possible for members ofdifferent racial groups to breed with one another, the races are not separate species. Also, it is not possible to take any givenhuman and unambiguously classify him or her as belonging to one particular race (as would be required with speciesclassification). Race in the biological sense therefore is more a statistical concept. It is, to put it plainly, simply a majordivision of the human species grouped by ancestry. Racial Traits A race is distinguished by a particular combination ofinherited features. AnthropologistsA Call to ActionThe trap of the non sequiturIt's quite reasonable to imagine that, had Hitler never been born, the Eugenics Movement of theearly 1900's would have continued to flourish, and there would be eugenics programs in place inmost advanced countries today. Policies would evolve to make use of new knowledge ofgenetics as it was acquired, and people would take eugenics for granted as merely "commonsense," and "just basic human kindness." But unfortunately, the vagaries of history andlimitations of the human mind have conspired to construct a psychological trap which has thusfar prevented any serious discussion of eugenics since the end of World War II. The "trap" is theuniversally accepted belief that "Hitler supported eugenics, so eugenics must be evil." It seemsincredible that this non sequitur has totally paralyzed the Western world on the issue of our ownevolution for decades. There were 28 other countries besides Nazi Germany that practicedeugenics, and nothing monstrous happened there. Sweden's eugenics program lasted 40 years.Like Pavlov's dogs, we in the Western world are the objects of conditioning. Pavlov rang a belljust before feeding the dogs, and soon they began to salivate at the sound of the bell. We haveheard "eugenics" paired with horrific stories of Nazi atrocities so many times that we now feelnegative emotions upon hearing the word, and we fear and hate the very idea of it. Like a knee-jerk response, it may not be rational, and it may not be fair, but that doesn't matter to the moreprimitive mechanisms of our brains. Fortunately, such conditioning can be extinguished. Thereare numerous studies in the psychological literature on this. The bottom line is that if Pavlovstarts feeding his dogs without ringing the bell first, then gradually the dogs will cease salivatingat the sound of a bell. Similarly, if people see, hear, read, and talk about eugenics when it is notcoupled with frightening images of the Holocaust, then eventually the conditioned negativeemotions towards it will fade away. Making this happen becomes the responsibility of all of uswho support eugenics.The non sequitur joins forces with the unfavorable ZeitgeistThe Zeitgeist of the Western world at the turn of the millennium is completely and utterlyunfavorable to eugenics. All the facts that comprise the edifice of scientific knowledge uponwhich it rests have been declared verboten by the liberal Thought Police. These are not mattersof opinion, these are scientific facts. Twin studies and adoption studies have found that all traitshave some genetic component--intelligence, kindness, phobias, political beliefs, favorite colors,sexual preference, religious faith, vegetable aversions--and on and on and on. IQ is more afunction of heredity than it is of environment--adopted children show no correlation with theiradoptive families whatsoever by the time they are grown. Yet these facts have been deliberatelykept from the public by the media and academia, and branded "racist."Thankfully, Communism as a political system has fallen into "the ash heap of history," asRonald Reagan predicted, but it's ideology of egalitarianism is alive and well in both the mediaand academia, which currently have a strangle-hold on public opinion. Anyone who daresquestion egalitarianism publicly will face serious consequences.Recall that the idea of Communism sounded nice--that "everyone will share, and work towardthe common good." But behind that facade lurked the most destructive system of governementthat ever existed. Likewise, egalitarianism sounds nice. It asserts: "All individuals and groupsare born exactly equal on every trait that matters." The simple fact is that it's demonstrably false.Paper TigerEgalitarianism and the association of eugenics with the Nazis may seem to have created ahopeless situation, but it's more like a paper tiger. The fact is, no concerted effort has ever beenmade to overcome it. We can even allow eugenics' unfairly sullied reputation to work for us inthe beginning--we do nothing to reinforce it, of course, but if the word "eugenics" generates a lotof controversy, then so be it. The media follow controversy, and eugenics is nothing if notcontroversial. Talk radio thrives on it. We will get a brief "free ride," and then people will cometo realize that we are serious, dedicated people who are concerned with the well-being of futuregenerations. We might consider hiring a publicist and a marketing analyst to help us over thelong term.Eugenics needs to enter the public discourse, and people need to hear the common-sensearguments in favor of it. We should expect that some in the media will try to suppress eugenics'message, or distort it, just as they more generally do not cover (or deliberately slant) facts andevents that are at variance with their own liberal, egalitarian views. However, others will cover itfairly, and with the Internet, C-Span, and who-knows-what next, eugenics won't be suppressedfor long.Safety in NumbersEugenicists need to join together in an organization, and to speak out publicly in articles,speeches, debates, and every forum possible. (I can say from my own somewhat limitedexperience that in debates, most anti-eugenicists aren't very formidable opponents, as they tendto be overly-emotional and terribly ill-informed.) Within 2 or 3 years, we should hold aninternational eugenics conference. A number of eminent scientists favor eugenics (such asFrancis Crick, James Watson, Joshua Lederberg, Lee Silver, et al). The conference will be agreat accomplishment, in and of itself, and we can publish the proceedings. It ought to be a heldagain every other year. It will also be newsworthy, in light of the many luminaries in attendance--to say nothing of the noisy protesters marching outside!It's essential to groom several individuals as our media spokespeople. I deliberately use the word"groom" in 2 senses. The first is to prepare for a role, the second is to "spruce up." Like thepoliticos, we must be media-savvy in order to succeed, so our spokespeople must practicedebating, dealing with unruly audiences, etc., and in addition, we must take all necessary stepsto make them as "camera friendly" as humanly possible.The fact that eugenics is a taboo subject means it's worse than being ignored--it means there's a"built-in" opposition to it on the part of the public before the subject is even broached. Bytemperament, most people are too timid to become directly involved in such a controversialissue, although some can do it behind the scenes. This leaves only a tiny percentage of thesmartest and the bravest people who are even capable of working on it, so those of us who can,should!!It would be a mistake to conclude that because the taboo against eugenics is unfair andunwarranted, we should simply ignore it, and the psychological dynamic keeping it in place.There are things we can do to eradicate the taboo (described below). It is also pointless tobemoan the blind conformity of the average person, which plays a role in maintaining it. Weneed to be objective about human nature, and to work with it.Consider the role of conformity in our evolution. The human species evolved as a social animal,and individuals had a difficult or impossible time trying to survive alone. Those who were tooterrified to express strong disagreement with the group would be more likely to survive and passon their genes in primitive circumstances in which ostracism usually meant death. It's no wonderconformity is a very strong instinct. Therefore, psychologically, it's important for the public tosee respectable, articulate people speak out in support of eugenics, and then to see these sameindividuals again and again over time. Only then they will understand--not only intellectually,but emotionally, on a gut level--that eugenicists are not in danger of being crucified, burned atthe stake, or shunned by every living creature. If someone says something in favor of eugenics,and is denounced as a racist or a Nazi, he/she should maintain a "high profile" afterwards,confident and un-cowed, and other members of the organization should immediately hold apress conference to express their support."Jimmy the Greek"Eugenicists can learn a lesson from what happened to "Jimmy the Greek." In response to aquestion about why blacks seemed to excel at sports, he said something to the effect that perhapsplantation owners had encouraged reproduction of the strongest men so they could get morework done in the fields. He was instantly fired from CBS, and from then to his death was neverseen nor heard from again. Most people were hard-pressed to say precisely what was sooffensive about his remark. Perhaps he said something derogatory off camera. But the point is,the public gets the message: "Race is a taboo subject. Terrible things happen to those whobreech the taboo."This is precisely the message we want the public to un-learn about eugenics, and we can takesimple, practical steps to insure that it does un-learn it. Here is the essential thing, which bearsrepeating: We must speak out about eugenics at every opportunity, and we must insure that thepublic sees that those who do so go on to survive and prosper!! After they've witnessed this anumber of times, eugenics will no longer be a taboo subject. It's just that simple. We will havewon a major psychological victory.It will take years of hard work to accomplish this. But if this problem were easily solved,someone would have solved it long ago! In that case, we wouldn't have the honor and privilegeof taking on the challenge ourselves! We have before us an exceedingly difficult problemdemanding every ounce of our creative intelligence. But it is also the most "worthy" of problemsbecause the happiness and well-being of countless people of the future depend on our efforts.There's always a multitude of worthwhile causes, but I can't imagine any more important thaneugenics, because the health, intelligence, and character of the population are essential to therecognition and solution of all problems. We can never fully anticipate what difficulties thefuture will bring, and solve them in advance. Would it even be advisable to try? Certainly itwould not represent the optimal use of our resources. Far and away the best thing we can do forthe children of the future is to bequeath to them the gifts of excellent health, high intelligence,and good character so that they will have the maximum innate capacity to meet whateverchallenges might arise.Ask yourself this question: Would you rather be a healthy, smart, honorable person with numberof problems to overcome, or chronically ill, retarded, or a psychopath with no other problems? Ithink everyone--past, present, and future--would make the same choice. Biological integrity isthe number one priority for individuals, and for our species.Marian Van CourtGenesis of Eden DiversityEncyclopediaGet theGenesis of Eden AV-CD by secureinternet order >>CLICK_HERE

Return to Genesis of Eden?Chinese Deal Sparks Eugenics ProtestsNew Scientist 16 th Nov 1996 p4A French genetics company has won a deal that will let it examine the DNA of the entirepopulation of China if it wants, New Scientist magazine reported yesterday. Genset, whichspecialises in collecting and sequencing human DNA, says it will appoint about 20 researchersto collect and analyse the information. But the magazine said geneticists were worried thatChina could use the information to enforce its 1995 Maternal and Infantile Health Care Law,denounced by opponents as a "eugenics" law to stop "inferior" births. Many researchers arethreatening to boycott the next International Congress of Genetics in Beijing in 1998 unless thelaw is repealed.New Scientist said that although the French scientists were interested in new therapies, noteugenics, it was worried that the Chinese Government might try to use the knowledge toidentify genetically "unfit couples and foetuses.""If you have a commerical company coming to a major agreement wit a government committedto widespread eugenic abuse it's something many scientist would be concerned about" saidBritish geneticists meeting last week in London. Genset should secure specific promises that theinformation gained and released through the deal will not be used against inidividuals "Thecompany should say some bits of this law are wrong and evil" said David Sjherrat president ofthe Genetical Society.Cultural Reaction NS 24 Oct 98 3PARENTS the world over want perfect babies-though not everyone will agree what "perfect'means. A survey of deaf people (see p 18) has revealed a few who would prefer deaf children.Perhaps they see deafness as part of their identity, or maybe they fear rejection by children whocan hear. Whatever their reasons, they would get short shrift in China. According to a recentsurvey (also p 18), Chinese geneticists favour prenatal tests to back what appear to be eugenicpractices. The finding will horrify most of their Westem colleagues, and increase the pressureon them to boycott meetings in China. But the survey Also underscores the need forconstructive dialogue. And that can only take place if geneticists in the West understand thecultural forces at work. Xin Mao, the survey's author, makes no apologies for the findings. InChina, individuals are more willing than in most Western countries to make sacrifices for thegeneral good. China also has a burgeoning population. It's not hard to see why its geneticistsmight seek to cultivate the view that having an "unhealthy" child is "letting the side down".Who knows whether ordinary Chinese agree with the nation's geneticists? But even if they do, itdoesn't change the argument. Eugenics is abhorrent, whether it is directed by force or throughactive "cultural" compliance. It recalls horrific memories of attempts to create a master race andis the antithesis of human rights as it is known in the Western world.Return to Genesis of Eden?

The National Socialist movement in Germany from 1933-1945 is a departure from Westerntendencies toward universalism and muted individualism in the direction of racial nationalismand cohesive collectivism. The evidence reviewed below indicates that National Socialismdeveloped in the context of group conflict between Jews and gentiles, and I propose that it maybe usefully conceptualized as a group evolutionary strategy that was characterized by severalkey features that mirrored Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.Most basically, National Socialism aimed at developing a cohesive group. There was anemphasis on the inculcation of selfless behavior and within-group altruism combined withoutgroup hostility (MacDonald 1988a, 298-300). These anti-individualist tendencies can be seenin the Hitler Youth movement (Koch 1976; Rempel 1989). After 1936, membership wascompulsory for children after their tenth birthday. A primary emphasis was to mold children toaccept a group strategy of within-group altruism combined with hostility and aggression towardoutgroups, particularly Jews. Children were taught an ideology of nationalism, the organic unityof the state, blind faith in Hitler, and anti-Semitism. Physical courage, fighting skills, and awarlike mentality were encouraged, but the most important aspect of education was grouployalty: "Faithfulness and loyalty irrespective of the consequences were an article of faith sharedamong wide sections of Germany's youth" (Koch 1976, 119).Socialization for group competition was strongly stressed, "all the emphasis centering onobedience, duty to the group, and helping within the group" (Koch 1976, 128). The ideology ofNational Socialism viewed the entire society (excluding the Jews) as a large kinship group--a"Volksgemeinschaft transcending class and creed" (Rempel 1989, 5). A constant refrain of theliterature of the Hitler Youth was the idea of the individual sacrificing himself for the leader:"the basic idea is that of a group of heroes inseparably tied to one another by an oath offaithfulness who, surrounded by physically and numerically superior foes, stand their ground. . .. Either the band of heroes is reduced to the last man, who is the leader himself defending thecorpses of his followers--the grand finale of the Nibelungenlied-- or through its unparalleledheroism brings about some favourable change in its fortune. (Koch 1976, 143)"The Hitler Youth was associated with the SS (Schutzstaffel, "protection echelon")--an elite corpsof highly committed and zealous soldiers. Rempel (1989, 256) estimates that 95 percent ofGerman youth maintained their fidelity to the war effort even after the defeat at Stalingrad. Koch(1976) describes high levels of selfless behavior among Germans during the war both as soldiersand as support personnel in the war effort, and quotes from individual youth clearly indicate thatthe indoctrination of young people with National Socialist ideology was quite successful andoften appears to have been causally responsible for self-sacrificing behavior.Within-group egalitarianism is often an important facilitator of a group evolutionary strategy,because it cements the allegiance of lower-status individuals (see below and PTSDA, Ch. 1).While the National Socialist movement retained traditional hierarchical Western social structure,the internal cohesiveness and altruism characteristic of National Socialism may have beenfacilitated by a significant degree of egalitarianism. There were real attempts to increase thestatus and economic prospects of farmers in the Hitler Youth Land Service, and class divisionsand social barriers were broken down within the Hitler Youth movement to some extent, withthe result that lower and working-class children were able to move into positions of leadership.Moreover, the socialist element of National Socialism was more than merely a deceptive front(Pipes 1993, 260, 276-277). The economy was intensively regulated, and private property wassubject to expropriation in order to achieve the goals of the community.Here it is of interest that an important element of the National Socialist ideology and behavior asa group strategy involved discrimination against Jews as a group. Jewish group membership wasdefined by biological descent (see Dawidowicz 1976, 38ff). As in the case of the limpiezaphenomenon of the Inquisition, this biological classification of Jews occurred in a context inwhich many of even the most overtly assimilated Jews--those who had officially converted toChristianity--continued Jewish associational and marriage patterns and had in effect becomecrypto-Jews (see below and Chapter 6). Thus, an act of September 1933 prohibited farmers frominheriting land if there was any trace of Jewish ancestry going back to 1800, and the act of April11, 1933, dismissing Jews from the civil service applied to any individual with at least oneJewish grandparent. National Socialist extremists advocated the dissolution of mixed marriagesand Jewish sterilization, and wanted to consider even individuals with one-eighth Jewishancestry as full Jews.1From the present perspective, Germany after 1933 was characterized by the presence of twoantithetical group strategies. Jews were systematically driven from the German economy ingradual stages between 1933 and 1939. For example, shortly after the National Socialistsassumed power, there were restrictions on employment in the civil service, the professions,schools and universities, and trade and professional associations--precisely the areas of theeconomy in which Jews were disproportionately represented--and there is evidence forwidespread public support for these laws (Friedlander 1997; Krausnick 1968, 27ff). Quotas wereestablished for attendance at universities and public schools. An act of September 1933 excludedJews from faculties in the arts, literature, theater, and film. Eventually Jewish property wasexpropriated and taxed exorbitantly, and Jews were subjected to a variety of indignities ("Noindignity seemed too trivial to legislate" [Gordon 1984, 125]), including prohibitions againstowning pets.As has happened so often in periods of relatively intense anti-Semitism, barriers were raisedbetween the groups. Jews were required to wear identifying badges and were prohibited fromrestaurants and public parks. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 prevented marriage and all sexualcontact between the groups. The laws prohibited Jews from employing German women underthe age of forty-five as domestic servants--presumably an attempt to prevent Jewish men in asuperior position from having sexual contact with fertile gentile women. The National Socialistauthorities were also very concerned about socializing and friendship between Jews and gentiles(Gordon 1984, 179; Krausnick 1968, 31 )--a phenomenon that recalls the ancient Jewish winetaboo, intended to prevent Jews from socializing with gentiles.Just as social controls on group members have been important to the Jewish group evolutionarystrategy, especially in traditional societies, the National Socialist group strategy punishedindividuals who violated the various race laws enacted by the Third Reich, failed to cooperate inboycotts against Jewish businesses, or socialized with Jews. For example, there wereapproximately four hundred criminal cases per year for "race defilement" (i.e., sexual contactbetween Jews and gentiles) under the Nuremberg Laws. As in the case of Jewish social controlsdesigned to ensure within-group conformity to group interests (see PTSDA, Chs. 4, 6), theNational Socialists penalized not only the individual but the family as well: "Any decision toviolate Nazi racial regulations, whether premeditated or impulsive, placed a stigma upon oneselfand one's family. Arrest or loss of Nazi party membership, for example, frequently meant loss ofone's job, retaliation against one's spouse or children, and social exclusion (often compulsory)"(Gordon 1984, 302).GERMAN ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGIES AS IDEOLOGIES OF GROUP COMPETITION"Let us not forget whence we spring. No more talk of 'German,' or of 'Portuguese' Jews. Thoughscattered over the earth we are nevertheless a single people"-Rabbi Salomon Lipmann-Cerfberrin the opening speech delivered on July 26, 1806, at the meeting preparatory to the Sanhedrin of1807, convened by Napoleon. (Epigraph from Houston Stewart Chamberlain's [1899, I, 329]Foundations of the Nineteenth Century at the beginning of the chapter entitled "The Entrance ofthe Jews into the History of the West")While popular German anti-Semitism appears to have been largely autonomous and based onreal conflicts of interest rather than the result of the manipulation by an exploitative ordemagogic elite (Hagen 1996; Harris 1994, 225- 227; Pulzer 1988, xviii, 321),2 the intense anti-Semitism characteristic of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party) leadershipwas not shared by the majority of the population (see Field 1981, 457; Friedlander 1997, 4)3. Ifindeed German anti-Semitism was to a considerable extent a "top-down" phenomenon in whichthe NSDAP and government played an indispensable leadership role, it becomes crucial to probethe beliefs of these National Socialist leaders, and in particular of Hitler himself, for whom anti-Semitism was at the very center of his world view (Dawidowicz 1975; Ffledlander 1997, 102;Gordon 1984, 312; Johnson 1988, 489). The point here will be that Hitler viewed both Judaismand National Socialism as group evolutionary strategies.However, the perception of group conflict between Jews and gentiles as a central feature ofGerman society long predates Hitler. The literature on 19th-century German anti-Semitismindicates a perception among gentiles that Jews and gentiles were engaged in group conflict.There are also detailed proposals for gentile group strategies in opposition to Judaism. Germananti-Semitism in the course of the 19th century shifted from demands for Jewish assimilation byintellectuals such as Kant and the young Hegelians in the early part of the century, to anincreasing emphasis on the ethnic divide separating Germans and Jews (Wistrich 1990, 35ff).Throughout this period the consistent belief of German liberals combating anti-Semitism was